British Columbia's Tobacco Litigation and the Rule of Law

Research output: Working paper


Professor Elliot was invited to participate in a panel [hosted in 2003 at the the Canaidan Institute for the Administration of Justice conference] because of a concern on the part of the conference organizers that, since there are obviously two sides to the dispute between a number of major Canadian and foreign companies engaged in the manufacture of tobacco products and the Government of British Columbia about the constitutionality of British Columbia’s Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.B.C. 2000, c. 30 it would be better for you to hear from representatives of both sides rather than just one. Ross Clark, counsel for one of the foreign companies, Philip Morris Inc., has succinctly summarized the position taken by his client on the issue with which it has been primarily concerned, which is whether the Act should be struck down because it offends the rule of law. [See D.R. CLARK, “British Columbia Tobacco Litigation and the Rule of Law” in in Hughes & Molinari, eds., Participatory Justice in a Global Economy: The New Rule of Law (2004). Professor Elliot was involved on the Government’s side of this dispute for a number of years - in fact since the enactment of the current Act’s predecessor in 1997. He can therefore appropriately be viewed as the representative of that side. In that capacity, he attempts to summarize equally succinctly the position the Government has taken in response to Philip Morris’ submissions on that issue.

Original languageUndefined/Unknown
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2004

Cite this